888 Judge · Verdict

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description claims binding arbitration and state-changing actions (SEAL/HOLD/SABAR/VOIDs), contradicting the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is dense and front-loaded with core purpose, but uses cryptic jargon (KERNEL 888, floors, SABAR) that may confuse agents. Not optimally concise for AI consumption.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers core concept, modes, prerequisites, and alternatives, but lacks explanation of cryptic terms and some parameters. Adequate given output schema exists, but could be more comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Description adds meaning to key required parameters (actor, intent, domain, etc.) and mentions evidence, but many parameters (actor_id, session_id, etc.) are left unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool is for constitutional verdict and binding arbitration, with specific verbs like SEAL/HOLD/SABAR/VOIDs. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools for incomplete evidence or plans.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states required parameters (actor, intent, domain, etc.) and provides clear when-to-use guidance by directing to siblings when evidence or plan is incomplete, or for low-risk advisory.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.